I've released my documentary film on the history of the right to arms, "In Search of the Second Amendment." It stars twelve professors of constitutional law, plus Steve Halbrook, David Kopel, Don Kates, and Clayton Cramer. You can order the DVD here. And here's the Wikipedia page on it. SUPREME COURT SPECIAL: additional orders only $10 each.

9th Circuit reverses Peruta v. San Diego, strikes down "may issue"

California's handgun carry permit system says a permit may issue for "good cause," with a definition that is essentially "some special and exceptional reason beyond the average person's carrying for self-defense." The Circuit panel holds that a constitutional right cannot be so arbitrarily restricted. It's the first time a Circuit has accepted that (to my mind, very strong) argument. The opinion also accepts that the right to arms extends outside the home.

Hurrah!

Hat tip to reader Gene Hoffman, of Calguns Foundation.

Update: two of the three judges signing the opinion are Clinton appointees! (Correction: one of them is). Another update: correct, the Clinton appointee dissented. I missed that -- don't think I've ever seen a case laid out as majority opinion-list of counsel-dissenting opinion.

Are you sure about the makeup of the panel? The opinion says it was written by O’Scannlain with Callahan joining and Thomas dissenting. According to Wikipedia, O’Scannlain was appointed by Reagan, Callahan by G.W. Bush, and Thomas by Clinton. It looks to me like it broke along the expected political lines, and that doesn't bode well for a potential en-banc reargument.

Just think Clayton, over a decade ago I phoned you up to tell you the good news that the RI Supreme Court had cited you, and the bad news that it was in the dissent. At the time, you were thrilled! Look how far you have come since then!

This has ramifications for New York in particular. This opinion is at variance with the 2d cir. It is a good argument and now, hopefully, will get to the USSC. New York, and some other states have gotten away with cavalier disregard for their citizens rights.

OK, this has implications for the Drake case from NJ which has lost at their circuit panel and is trying for the Supremes. I think the odds of the Supremes taking Drake just got turbocharged now that there's a circuit split wider than the Grand Canyon if it had been repeatedly nuked.

If the Supremes don't take Drake my prediction is San Diego will try for En Banc review at the 9th but will NOT go to the Supremes, because gun-grabber strategy has to be to keep a carry case away from the Nine Robes in DC until one of the McDonald Five dies.

If Peruta stands in the 9th Circuit it will impact Hawaii, Guam, some other small islands out there :).

Also: Cali doesn't allow any carry whatsoever by out-of-state US citizens, and that is flat banned in Ward v. Maryland 1870 and Saenz v. Roe 1999 - esp. where a basic civil right from the Bill of Rights is concerned.

Anything in CA law that will prevent SD County (and other anti-carry counties around the state) from adopting, say, Chicago's "shall issue" regime, with its fees, training, range time, etc. requirements?

As I understand it counties are allowed to set their own terms for having your application approved (background checks, letters from friends, good cause, etc) but the actual permit -costs- and training requirements are set by state law without county discretion.

Peruta went as expected. Lately, all 2nd amm votes are political. Heller won due to 5 Bush/Reagan appointees vs 4 Obama/Clinton appointees. Peruta won due to 2 Bush/Reagan appointees vs 1 Clinton appointee. Thus proving you must be a Republican-appointed judge to accurately undertand the definition of the english words "keep and bear".